Uphill Effort To Reverse Net Neutrality Repeal Has The Early Votes
from the reverse-the-reversal dept
As we’ve been tracking, there are several routes net neutrality advocates should support if they want to reverse the FCC’s attack on net neutrality. The best path forward remains with the courts, where the FCC will need to explain why it ignored the public, the experts, 1,000 startups, and all objective data as it rushed to give a sloppy kiss to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. It will also need to explain why it made up a DDOS attack and blocked a law enforcement investigation into rampant comment fraud during the proceeding; both apparently ham-fisted attempts to downplay legitimate public opposition to the plan.
But we’ve also noted how there’s an effort afoot by net neutrality advocates and Senator Ed Markey to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the FCC’s vote. Under the CRA, Congress can overturn a regulatory action with a majority vote if the Act is used within 60 days of said action. It’s what the Trump administration and the GOP used early last year to kill broadband privacy protections before they were scheduled to take effect.
Bringing such a vote to the floor requires at least 30 members of the Senate, something net neutrality advocates now have with the new support of Claire McCaskill:
30 is the magic number of cosponsors needed to get a #NetNeutrality vote in the full Senate.
Proud to be that 30th cosponsor of @SenMarkey bill to restore free and open internet.
— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 8, 2018
A big step toward restoring a free and open Internet: with the support of @clairecmc, we now have the 30 votes we need to force a vote on my CRA to reverse the repeal of #NetNeutrality! pic.twitter.com/gXtWQmeIJS
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) January 8, 2018
And while net neutrality supporters are enthusiastic about the CRA route, even with these votes it has a steep, uphill climb to success. The CRA reversal would require the signature of President Trump, which isn’t going to happen. And getting House floor time for a comparable vote is likely untenable given the steeper GOP majority in the house. As we’ve long noted, this binary thinking of net neutrality as a partisan issue is a disservice to the public, since the vast majority of voters support net neutrality and opposed the FCC’s handout to industry.
That said, there’s still real value in forcing Comcast-loyal lawmakers to put their disdain for the public down on the permanent record. Especially given the looming midterms, when countless politicians will have to explain (espcially to more tech-savvy Millennial voters) why they chose to ignore the will of the public just so Comcast, AT&T and Verizon could explore new, creative ways of screwing over small businesses, startups, consumers, and the health of the internet.
Filed Under: congress, congressional review act, cra, fcc, net neutrality
Comments on “Uphill Effort To Reverse Net Neutrality Repeal Has The Early Votes”
All this uphill fighting for peanuts.
Better to goad the cities and states to create municipal networks. It would do a much better job of nailing monopoly ISP’s coffins shut, but as usual you all have to work against your own interested because that is what your dogma demands!
Re: Re:
The biggest problem with this is the state protection law’s which have been shown to be nothing but bad for consumers and some times even written by ISP’s time and time again.
You now have ISP’s that feel that the rules should be goverened at a state level when they are trying to push back at federal rules but at the same time say they states shouldn’t be allowed to write these rules when all of a sudden the states in question are trying to protect consumers.
As someone who is on the outside looking in being from over the pond, I genuinly wonder why people are allowed to get away with this, it’s not even subtle, the only way you can call it subtle is if you were to descibe it as being as subtle as a sledge hammer!
I know people don’t like regulation, and people say regulation won’t work in the internet/ISP world, well a good chunk of the world would beg to differ, where I live which is a village, we have 1 main provider that maintains the lines, then all other ISP’s can use these lines to see broadband, and because of this we have lots of competition, I can’t remember the last time I saw an ISP in the UK offer limited connections or caps, they are all pretty much unlimited, I reguarly hit 1tb a month due to streaming all my content from Netflix, Amazon and such.
it’s going to be hard to take down the few ISP’s that are around as they have soo much power and many people don’t have much choice in the matter, but somthing needs to be done soon, I can’t see people putting up with this for much longer, as people become more tech savy I hope they will be grilled on their tech policies.
Re: Re: Re:
“The biggest problem with this is the state protection law’s which have been shown to be nothing but bad for consumers and some times even written by ISP’s time and time again.”
It is dishonest and showing when you use “but they are corrupt” as an argument when everyone is corrupt. Protectionist laws are being written at all the levels not just state or local. Find a better argument please!
“As someone who is on the outside looking in being from over the pond, I genuinly wonder why people are allowed to get away with this, it’s not even subtle, the only way you can call it subtle is if you were to descibe it as being as subtle as a sledge hammer!”
It looks the same on your side from mine, so what? You think your shitbags are better than mine? Mine are full of bullshit and yours are full of horseshit. Shit either way and no it does not matter that you like the smell of your shit better. Both sides still smell like shit.
“I know people don’t like regulation, and people say regulation won’t work in the internet/ISP world, well a good chunk of the world would beg to differ, where I live which is a village, we have 1 main provider that maintains the lines, then all other ISP’s can use these lines to see broadband, and because of this we have lots of competition, I can’t remember the last time I saw an ISP in the UK offer limited connections or caps, they are all pretty much unlimited, I reguarly hit 1tb a month due to streaming all my content from Netflix, Amazon and such.”
Regulation like everything else serves its purpose. Like you said you have only 1 main provider that only maintains the lines. In your case you have regulations that “promote free-market participation” over here we have regulations that “prevent free-market participation” I want what you just said you have, but here you are still fucking with me and disagreeing with me and ONLY because I don’t want to get to where you are the way your dogma says I should.
Do you see that yet? I want what you have to happen here, but because your way is not the “dogma way” to do things in America we fuck it all up!
I agree with regulations that promote free-market participation just like YOU do it, but since I used the wrong dogmatic words people here are NOT going to like it. They don’t care about the truth, they would rather have all the good things destroyed unless those good things arrive under the banner of “their dogma”. And they HATE free-market ideals with a passion!
“it’s going to be hard to take down the few ISP’s that are around as they have soo much power and many people don’t have much choice in the matter, but somthing needs to be done soon, I can’t see people putting up with this for much longer, as people become more tech savy I hope they will be grilled on their tech policies.”
Yes, it is going to be hard, but securing NN at the federal level is going to make it harder because it never addresses the root problem. If NN goes back in, we are going to lose the fight again and people are going to go home thinking they won and STOP FIGHTING like the idiots they are.
We should be asking for regulations that takes the natural monopolies away from these ISP’s not allowing them to stand under the weak-sauce regulations that are NN.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Firstly let me point out that I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous to yourself regarding this matter, I wasn’t intending to come across as such or condasending, well not as much as you’ve tried in your reply anyway, sounds more like a foaming at the mouth reply rather than a well thought out and contructed response to help progress the conversation or highlight points that may have been overlooked, but Alas I will attempt to respond in kind:
It is dishonest and showing when you use "but they are corrupt" as an argument when everyone is corrupt. Protectionist laws are being written at all the levels not just state or local. Find a better argument please!
so just because it’s happening everywhere you shouldn’t be bothered about it? I am also sure I mentioned this in my post, to recant:
You now have ISP’s that feel that the rules should be goverened at a state level when they are trying to push back at federal rules but at the same time say they states shouldn’t be allowed to write these rules when all of a sudden the states in question are trying to protect consumers.
I admit I could have been clearer in that statement, what I was alluding to is the fact that ISP’s push state rules when it suits them and federal rules when it suits them, IE buying state protection rules but at the same time pushing for the FCC to stop states from enacting their own NN rules or privacy rules for example.
It looks the same on your side from mine, so what? You think your shitbags are better than mine? Mine are full of bullshit and yours are full of horseshit. Shit either way and no it does not matter that you like the smell of your shit better. Both sides still smell like shit.
At no point did I point out or infer that we are perfect in the UK, this seems like nothing more than a "Well so are you nerr ner nee ner nerrr", but as you brought this up, we have muppets in control of our country that seem to be in a world of their own and seemingly want to control everything even if it’s not possible, every country has issues with their govenments, I simply made an observation that the ISP industry (Amongst others) seem to have soo much infuence over the people that are supposed to be making unbiased decisions on what is the best for the people that are supposed to be representing, we have a similar issue over here and I point it out to people.
I will normally be one of the first to point out the failings in our country as we aren’t without them.
I want what you just said you have, but here you are still fucking with me and disagreeing with me and ONLY because I don’t want to get to where you are the way your dogma says I should.
Please point out where I implied this, at no stage did I say I disagree with you, I was simply highlighting an issue that may lie ahead is all, I don’t even pretend to think I know what is right or wrong for you, your personal circumstance haven’t been made known to myself, even if they were I wouldn’t try to impose my whims on you, my point in that paragraph was to show how it can work.
As for weak NN rules, they are better than no rules, or rules that will be passed by congress that will be worse than nothing, your better off with weak NN rules and work from there, need to start somewhere, either that or lose all NN protections, then get screwed over and start a mass movement akin to the French revolution
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“so just because it’s happening everywhere you shouldn’t be bothered about it?”
It’s okay to be bothered about it, just not okay to use it as an excuse to close of an avenue of attack like it mattered somehow. You cannot allow your solutions to be shutdown just because corruption is at hand, there is no such thing as a solution that does not face risk of corruption.
“I admit I could have been clearer in that statement, what I was alluding to is the fact that ISP’s push state rules when it suits them and federal rules when it suits them, IE buying state protection rules but at the same time pushing for the FCC to stop states from enacting their own NN rules or privacy rules for example.”
See, you do understand, they are going to push where we allow them to push. The point of saying now to NN and letting the states build these networks instead is to take money away from the incumbents. Are there other ways? sure, it is just not through NN because that keeps the incumbents rich and that is the root of the problem.
“I don’t even pretend to think I know what is right or wrong for you,”
I was not trying to imply that you can’t know what is right or wrong for us because you are not hear. I was just saying that everyone has corruption problems, just in different ways.
“Please point out where I implied this, at no stage did I say I disagree with you,”
Wait…. is this not a disagreement?
“The biggest problem with this is the state protection law’s which have been shown to be nothing but bad for consumers and some times even written by ISP’s time and time again.”
This “disagreement” was even complete with two article from TD about protectionist laws being written. If you were NOT disagreeing with me… then what were you doing?
I want the states to dismantle the ISP’s and create their own networks, it will devastate the incumbent ISP’s far more than weak sauce NN rules that still let the incumbents keep their monopolies and to buy more time to buy more protectionist laws and buy more regulators and stuff your bills more and more every month.
If they lose their money because a municipal ISP sprung up its going to be better for everyone even though it is not the best possible solution.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
This "disagreement" was even complete with two article from TD about protectionist laws being written. If you were NOT disagreeing with me… then what were you doing?
Do you support state law’s written by ISP’s preventing homegrown ISP’s then?
I do agree that municipal networks would be the best thing from my point of view (Which may or may not be correct, there are more things at play which I won’t be privy to)
I was highlighting the problems which face municipal networks because of these laws, they need to be removed, some of them to beagger belif, I am sure I read somewhere that one state has a rule preventing municipal networks included in traffic light laws? or am I thinking of something else? I am trying to recant from memory here.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, who are you saying should have the natural monopolies in Internet service?
Because “no one” is not an option; the only way to have no one hold those monopolies is to not have the service provided at all. Although we try to get rid of monopolies wherever possible, with natural monopolies that is not a viable possibility; that’s (one way to express) the defining characteristic of a natural monopoly.
It was recognized long ago in this country that the least bad way to handle such natural monopolies is to regulate them, and those who hold them, such that they do not get abused. The entity which was established to do that regulating is the FCC.
If the FCC were not in place to do that regulating, someone else would have to be – or else no regulating would occur, and the monopolies would be subject to unconstrained abuse. (And what would cause that “someone else” to be any different from the FCC, in practice?)
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Or to put this perhaps a little more clearly:
If you’re asking for regulations to keep those who hold the natural monopolies from abusing those monopolies, you’re asking for the FCC as originally intended, or for something functionally equivalent to it.
If you’re asking for regulations to keep the natural monopolies from existing, you’re asking for the by-definition impossible.
Re: Re: Re:
“where I live which is a village”
Notably capacity is probably cheaper to provide in the EU, due in large part to urban planning, (or lack thereof) that went all the way back to the stone age. Running cable in a village is cheaper than running it in a suburb. Your houses are closer together.
Of course you can’t throw a backhoe without striking some kind of prehistoric artifact. So there is that. But overall the amount of fiber and copper per user, is probably a fraction of what ours is.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are right, but still not germane to the subject here.
The real subject is that they have regulations promoting free-market access to public network while we have regulations promoting monopolist access to public network.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“The real subject is that they have regulations promoting free-market access to public network while we have regulations promoting monopolist access to public network.”
No, as has been explained to you, the real subject is that we have EFFECTIVE regulation ensuring that these companies cannot maintain monopolies. Whereas, the things you have generally promoted encourage collusion, if not outright monopoly behaviour.
By the way, I think it’s notable that a private company has recently announced a €1 million contract to provide fibre optic connectivity to a nearby town, population roughly 5,500, not insignificant work as the town is located around 15km inland from larger population centres up a large incline. This is being done by a competitor to the largest, formerly state-owned provider, who had shown no interest in carrying out the work. In other words – regulation made this work possible.
It’s always funny seeing the anti-regulation folk argue against their own self interests while pretending they’re not helping screw themselves as consumers.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Hey look, its the PaulT liar here to spew more lies.
If you could just stop lying it might help better with the conversation. every time you come here your first trick is to misrepresent my position because you have no substance… just lies!
Keep up the work liar.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Me thinks you doth protest too much sir.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Man… you’re spending a lot of time here and on YouTube lately. The girl left with the kid huh? Smart girl.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Hey look, its the PaulT liar here to spew more lies.”
What am I lying about specifically? As ever, I’ll apologise if you’re not the rabidly anti-regulation asshole AC who attacks people for supporting any kind of regulation, even when they’re giving you first-hand accounts of how regulation has helped every other country outside the US. I’ll apologise if you weren’t the complete tosser who was telling me I somehow deserved Ajit Pai, as if I hadn’t already stated I have no direct ties to the US. The confusion is on you since you refuse to differentiate yourself any any of the other AC trolls, but I’ll apologise if you present evidence to anyone that I’m mistaken.
But, let’s guess – you have nothing so you’re pretending I’m the liar when presenting facts, right? A sad, pathetic little troll who supports his own consumer rights being stripped from him and laughing because he thinks he’s somehow scoring points against the people trying to prevent this.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I think the chain of logic is:
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Except for all those times he’s said he’s against all regulation.
Protip: linking to one of them is a good way to get him to shut up for a little bit.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I think he considers those to be an example of verbal shorthand, where he just makes the general statement rather than bothering to re-outline the exceptions every time, and thus not a valid example.
(And/or, in some cases from the early days, an example of an older viewpoint which he has been persuaded to modify – by, e.g., all the times people pointed out that anti-trust regulations are a form of regulation; it wasn’t until after that had been happening for a while that I first saw him doing the “I’m for anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations” thing. Though I don’t recall his ever having admitted to having been persuaded to change his views, or to having been inititally wrong.)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Running cable in a village is cheaper than running it in a suburb. Your houses are closer together.
True our villages are closer than villages in America for example, but at the same time, once your in the village things should be about the same aren’t they?
We have a body which ruled that OpenReach (The UK’s main internet provider) supply internet to everywhere in the UK with a minimum requirement which will be reviewed and upped as requirements for general life increase.
It’s not that cheap to lay cable here due to other regulations and such but OpenReach do it none the less, I beleive they recently announced they are spending another £3-6 Billion (About $4.05-8.1 billion) so it’s not like they aren’t seriously investing.
Didn’t I hear the 1996 telecomunications act effectivly pay to connect everywhere with Fiber? or am I mixing that up with something else?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The money problem is a red herring issue to detract from the problem at hand. Protectionist Regulations. We have to destroy them, but every time we try “pro regulatory zealots” get bent way out of shape over it and claim everyone is trying to bring anarchy.
We need regulations like you said your village has. where a company manages the physical and ISP’s can connect to that making it easy to have competition where ISP’s would not dream of capping people because they would lose all of their customers to the competition.
I want there here in the USA!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Here’s the thing.
I doubt anyone (here) has any more love for protectionist regulation than you do. Certainly I don’t.
However, I have yet to see any indication of what protectionist regulations are supposed to exist in the Internet-service market at the federal level, except to the extent that the failure to impose "open up the last mile" types of regulation – which is a lack of regulation – may be considered protectionist.
All of the protectionist regulations I know of in the Internet-service market are at the state and local levels, and mostly at the state level. None of them were imposed by the FCC.
So what federal-level regulations is it that you consider protectionist and would like to see removed?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that you lot don’t live in Namibia. You live in the richest, most advanced country in the world. Yet you rank way down in internet access, and apparently running a bit of cable cross-country is a billion times harder than running them undersea, or running leaky oil pipes every which way.
If your argument Is “but it’s hard” I raise you Moon landings. “But it’s far” – Australia and many other large countries. I bet even Canada and Russia have better internet than you lot. However, a lot of the problems occur in cities, which funnily enough most other countries can actually manage to deal with, whether new or old.
Third-World excuses to go with Third-World infrastructure, to go with Third-World healthcare.
Re: Re: Re:
We’ve always had regulation — of one form or another — on the Internet/ARPAnet, as well most of the other predecessor networks that have been subsumed by it. It’s NECESSARY.
It’s sad that this is true. It’s sad that corporate and personal greed is so massive that even the people who are making plenty of money, people who are much more than merely “comfortably” wealthy choose to exploit the system to make still more…but it’s true. We’re a long way from the time when those of us cooperatively building the ‘net’s first links often cost-shared (sometimes not entirely above board) in order to make it work. The spirit of collaboration, the spirit of doing some good for the world, the spirit of dedication to something bigger than ourselves, is gone.
So the question is not “should there be regulation?” Only a fool or a libertarian (but I repeat myself) would say no. The question is what regulation will do the most good for society as a whole, and right now we are nowhere near enacting and enforcing regulations that are anywhere close to that target.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The question is what regulation will do the most good for society as a whole, and right now we are nowhere near enacting and enforcing regulations that are anywhere close to that target.”
You can’t get fucking idiots like PaulT to understand that.
I want sane regulations, he does not and in fact goes so far as to advance the lie that I want zero regulation. I want anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulation. I want local governments to managed access to the physical infrastructure and to not allow businesses to own any portion of it. Those all require regulations so I obviously cannot be wanting anarchy can I?
If a business cannot possess a natural monopoly that allows for competition to spring up anywhere and give consumers a choice. Choice is something PaulT does not want anyone to have, he wants people to get whatever a politician tells us to get and then has the fucking nerve to bitch when that politician turns into Ajit Pai and then tells him something he didn’t want to hear.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If you quit your ad-hom whine-fest and actually read what PaulT you would see that at no point does he say any of that.
There is always a conversation to be had on the balance between service being provided by local municipalities (either sub-contracted or by the pols) versus being proved by private companies. We all agree that some regulation (on both) is good, to stop profiteering, ignoring customers, and other high-jinks. We all know that no regulation is not an option (hopefully), and that too much (wrong) regulation can be stifling, as can having regulation written by special interests. So I don’t see why you are getting so wound up and insulting.
It’s interesting that you really really hate what us Europeans think, with our actual decent internet and reasonably balanced regulation. Says a lot, really.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“If you quit your ad-hom whine-fest and actually read what PaulT you would see that at no point does he say any of that.”
…and in fact I state the opposite. I don’t know where he got his bullshit from by reading me tell him how effective regulation has led to superior choice in the area where I live, but he’s apparently too committed to being a complete twat at this point.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“I want sane regulations, he does not “
Now, who’s lying, asshole?
I’m literally telling you that effective regulation has led to a far superior marketplace where I live compared to the US. I want you to have the same sane regulations as the ones the marketplace I use has. Stop fucking lying.
“Choice is something PaulT does not want anyone to have”
Again, you rabid fucking liar, I’m telling you that I have that choice, as do most other countries, and I’d like you to have the same.
Stop lying your ass off about other people and listen to reality. Stop supporting your slide into zero consumer choice and vastly inferior internet, and use the damn tool to listen to what people are ACTUALLY TELLING YOU!
Re: Re:
You’re welcome to fight this battle on only one small front. If you read more than just this one article you’d know that you basically have no chance of winning on that front since ISP’s have long since written their own state laws to stop you, but go ahead anyway.
The rest of us choose to fight this fight on every front we can. We’re absolutely for your idea no matter how much you want to pretend to yourself that we’re not. We’re just also for the other methods our system has provided to protect against monopolist control over necessary communications networks.
Re: Re: Re:
“The rest of us choose to fight this fight on every front we can.”
A losing proposition. You spread yourself so thin that you can’t win any battles. People get fatigue and give up easy. We spend more time fight over how to fight than we actual do any real fighting. It’s why you keep losing, I am trying to change that but telling you guys to give up on NN, its a worthless fight because it does not do enough.
Go for the real fight, fight for regulations that destroy the monopolies and allow actual competition to flourish and your “NN” will practically arrive like a messiah by default! Fight for liberty, not protection!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice words, but empty platitudes. Do you have anything to actually say about these nebulous “better than NN” regulations, or do we not need details?
By the way – did you ever hear of “perfect is the enemy of the good” and other such sayings? You’re literally advocating for something that’s enough of a fallacy for centuries-old saying to be formed around the concept.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Nice words, but empty platitudes. Do you have anything to actually say about these nebulous “better than NN” regulations, or do we not need details?”
I guess you don’t read do you? Already mentioned in a different part of the post, but that is another one of your constant lies too. To keep saying I never gave a solution when there is already one on the page?
I guess you are stupid and a liar!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Ohh is he a liar with pants constantly on fire?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Link to the solution, because all I’m reading is the ranting of a moron. I must have missed the moment of clarity where you presented an original thought that wasn’t directed at attacking the people trying to protect your consumer rights.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I already Did! I have Lots of solutions! Lots and Lots of "solutions", which I have ALREADY LINKED TO, multiple times! I won’t tell you "when" and I won’t link them "again", but I Definitely did it! How dare you "say" that I Never have any Solutions, when I have Lots and Lots of Solutions? Look at all the Solutions I have! "Look" at them! Because I am very "smart"! I am a Very Stable Genius. You are all "sycophantic Idiots" who "lie" and say that I "neer offer any Solutions" even though I have offered solutions Lots of Times! So I’m not going to say what they are now.
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
Re: Re:
church
Re: Re:
“Better to goad the cities and states to create municipal networks”
The ones these same ISPs are trying to have deemed illegal?
Re: Re: Re:
Greetings PaulT you win the stupid question of the day!
Stand-by your prize in in the mail!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, noting the fact that ISPs have lobbied to outlaw municipal broadband is stupid to you? Those pesky facts beat you again!
Don’t worry, I’ll enjoy your continued breakdown as you witness your own rights stripped from you, I’ll be laughing heartily at your support of this from my well-maintained, effectively regulated internet connection that allows me the choices you have wished taken from you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Typical Trumpkin I guess. React to facts and reason with spewing venom. I’m almost sorry I can’t see what memes he would try and throw at us because words and thoughts are obviously hard.
I wasn’t feeling insulting until I’d read enough of his ranting insults to kill any sympathy I might have had for his stance.
Re: Re:
(just pretend this image is embedded) https://pics.me.me/state-states-cannot-egislate-their-ow-net-neutrality-so-hard-29235272.png
signature of President Trump
So it’s a turd that Congress can proudly leave on POTUS’s desk. Then celebrating loudly before their constituents, they can can return behind the curtain and drink whisky. There being relieved amongst themselves that the 1st amendment is gone, and that they were are able to fool everyone as they booted it over the fence.
DUDE!
Don’t rock the boat too hard; we’ll lose our special intrest money!
You must be so proud...
https://nypost.com/2018/01/08/racist-goons-are-targeting-the-fcc-chief-and-his-family/
Re: You must be so proud...
Sadly, there’s a portion of humans that will do such things. Pai apparent disdain towards Americans is just a way to feel warm and happy inside because it acts as a justification for the moronic losers such people are. It could be rival soccer teams, it could be Trump/Putin fan clubs or whatever the ‘justification’. So if you are attempting to pin the blame anywhere other than the real morons (the ones harassing) then you are part of the problem.
Re: You must be so proud...
Those people are as much assholes as Pai’s blind supporters. So?
Re: You must be so proud...
So, in conclusion:
Did you have a point, besides those two shocking revelations?
“The CRA reversal would require the signature of President Trump, which isn’t going to happen.”
I don’t think this is the biggest concern. I think the biggest hurdle would be getting the senate majority for it. After all, wasn’t it said about Trump that he’ll sign anything that’s put in front of him?
Taking Notes
I hope members of congress who go on record against this have to fight hard to keep their seats.
Re: Taking Notes
There are only two Republican senate seats that are likely pickups for Democrats this year, and only one of them will have an incumbent.
That said? Yes, definitely put some pressure on Heller. If there’s anybody here who’s from Nevada, give him a call.
(And of course there are plenty more seats up in 2020. It’s probably a good idea to contact your senator no matter who it is.)
Collins has announced she’ll vote for the resolution.
If every Democrat is a “yea”, then they just need one more Republican to pass it, as CRA bills can’t be filibustered.
Course, then it probably dies in the House. And even if it passes the House, it’ll probably get vetoed. But still, this puts it one step closer.
Call your senators.